Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Politics

Journal pudge's Journal: Paying for Bush's Proposals 37

Journal by pudge

Bush has been criticized a lot for not really having a plan to pay for his proposals. This is a fair criticism.

The problem is, most of the people making this criticism are Kerry supporters, and Kerry has the exact same problem.

Kerry's plan is to repeal the income tax cuts on incomes over $200K, and give a 5% tax cut to all corporations. I've not seen any breakdown on the net of these two, but surely they cancel each other out quite a bit. And Kerry wants to increase spending a lot more than Bush on two of the biggest expenditures, education and Medicare. So he is proposing not much more revenue, and a lot more spending, than what we have now, and still says he will significantly cut the deficit.

I've not seen a real breakdown of who would spend more, Bush or Kerry, but neither one of them is proposing significant cutting or additional revenue that would counteract their spending. Both are promising big handouts and tax cuts for businesses and telling us they will pay for it by an improved ecomony that will make businesses more profitable which will increase the amount they pay in taxes, which would be nice, but is something that's hard to count on, since the President can't just will that to happen.

So yeah, Bush can't pay for his proposals, but neither can Kerry. They are both selling the farm. Us fiscal conservatives are weeping. But we knew what we were getting when we voted for Bush in 2000, so it's not like we're surprised, but we still think he was better than Gore would have been, and better than Kerry would be.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Paying for Bush's Proposals More

Paying for Bush's Proposals

Comments Filter:
  • No offense intended, but I've noticed that partisans, when faced with an undeniable problem with their candidate, unconsciously move to level the playing field. Usually by asserting the other guy is just as bad, for reasons of "trust" or "character" or what have you. This doesn't strike me as a productive way to think about the issue.

    Anyway, I am no budgeting expert but from what I read neither plan adds up as stated. On the other hand, the "deficits don't matter" Bush administration and Republican-dominat
    • No offense intended, but I've noticed that partisans, when faced with an undeniable problem with their candidate, unconsciously move to level the playing field. Usually by asserting the other guy is just as bad, for reasons of "trust" or "character" or what have you. This doesn't strike me as a productive way to think about the issue.

      The trouble is, in the election it's a straight choice between two options. Saying that one guy is bad when the other guy is in fact worse shouldn't convince anybody to vote

      • Only if your heart ignores what he plans

        Right. I actually had a liberal tell me that yesterday, that Kerry might not follow through on what he has promised, but we know Bush will, so I should vote for Kerry! It's insane.
        • Amazing! I noticed that just the other day and almost mentioned that in my first response... that everybody, even Kerry supporters, assume he's not telling the truth.

          The most charitable thing you can say is that all the war rhetoric has put Kerry between a rock and a hard place -- he has to look agressive to get undecideds, but peaceful to keep the anti-war crowd in his camp.

          Even so, Kerry's really got a talent for finding a position that is a) hard to explain; b) angers everyone. Like "I would have voted
        • Right. I actually had a liberal tell me that yesterday, that Kerry might not follow through on what he has promised, but we know Bush will, so I should vote for Kerry! It's insane.

          No, no, no. Kerry's going to fix the problem, by having "across-the-board" cuts of domestic spending - everything except "defense, homeland security, education, Social Security, Medicare, or other mandatory programs". He's going to plug the gap, and fund the tax cuts he says he plans, by brutally slashing... um... law enforcemen

    • No offense intended, but I've noticed that partisans, when faced with an undeniable problem with their candidate, unconsciously move to level the playing field.

      That misses the point, which maybe I didn't make clear: the Democrats are attacking Bush for the same damned problem that Kerry has. Further, they are even saying fiscal conservatives should vote for Kerry because of Bush's budget problems, when Kerry's are just as bad, in almost the exactly same way.

      I am not defending Bush, I am saying the compa

  • As president, John Kerry will propose a budget that funds its priorities without allowing spending to grow faster than inflation. If Congress cannot agree on savings, John Kerry will be willing to sacrifice some of his priorities, if necessary, to control spending. Specifically, John Kerry will favor an automatic across-the-board cut of all domestic discretionary programs to ensure that spending does not grow faster than inflation. Again, such a cut would not apply to defense, homeland security, education,

    • As president, John Kerry will propose a budget that funds its priorities without allowing spending to grow faster than inflation.

      Yes, and Bush says the same thing. But their actual specific proposals don't show that at all.

      Specifically, John Kerry will favor an automatic across-the-board cut of all domestic discretionary programs to ensure that spending does not grow faster than inflation. Again, such a cut would not apply to defense, homeland security, education, Social Security, Medicare, or other ma
      • Shrug. Our side has made a pledge not to grow discretionary programs faster than inflation. What you have is mocking questions, taunting speculation, and a President who's grown discretionary spending twice as fast as Lyndon Johnson.
        • Our side has made a pledge not to grow discretionary programs faster than inflation.

          So? It's a pledge he cannot keep, as per the example I gave.
        • Does "discretionary programs" have some standard meaning in US politics? Discretionary in Kerry's mind? Anyway, considering the hole that Bush has put the US in, that amounts to a pledge of not making things go to hell any faster.

          It would be hard to find an economist more against Bush than Paul Krugman. His analysis [pkarchive.org], at least for things like Kerry's health care plan [pkarchive.org], is that they are revenue neutral. That is to say, they are paid for, but keep the US at the same unsustainable deficit level.

          I don't know wh
          • Does "discretionary programs" have some standard meaning in US politics?

            Simply put, yes. There is seldom disagreement over whether something is mandatory or discretionary, because there is a fixed, though a bit complicated, meaning.

            His analysis, at least for things like Kerry's health care plan, is that they are revenue neutral. That is to say, they are paid for, but keep the US at the same unsustainable deficit level.

            Yes, and that is coming from someone who hates Bush. I have doubts they are even p
  • As a fellow fiscal conservative, I join your weeping when considering the two presidential hopefuls. However, the amount of "fiscal savings" which might be encountered by re-electing Bush is far, far too high a price to pay for the amount of social issues on which he stands far, far to the right. Abortion rights, gay rights, the right of a National Guardsman not to have his contract ignored and summarily kept overseas far beyond any requirement, that kind of thing.

    And I'll echo Comedy Central's The Daily S
    • I am pro-life, so I like Bush in part for his views on abortion. My views on gay rights are somewhere in between ... more like Kerry than Bush, but probably more like Cheney. :-) As to the stop loss (which I think you are referring to), as best I've been able to tell, the contract specifically allows for the possibility of being kept longer, so no, it is not being ignored.
      • First, thanks for responding.

        Second, the National Guard (and US Army Reserve) is being abused, to the detriment of morale, recruitment, and retention, and the detriment of the fighting effort. These men and women are brave and have not shirked their duty, yet in the end they are National Guardsmen, not Marines or regular Army.

        More than 174,000 reservists and National Guard are currently "active". These people aren't, first and foremost, soliders. They are construction workers, police officers, teachers, a
        • the National Guard (and US Army Reserve) is being abused

          Perhaps so. A friend of mine is a reservist who was in Iraq for a year recently, and he disagrees, FWIW. But my point is not that what is happening is right or wrong, but that it is not accurate to say the contracts are being ignored.
          • What is Stop Loss? [optruth.com]

            The stop loss measures are not in the Guardsman's contract, they are legislation enacted by Congress and are being actively challenged in court.
            • Even the lawsuit [heraldnet.com] does not say stop loss goes against the National Guard contract, but that this particular use of it does, because, they claim, there is no connection between Iraq and the war on terror. Unfortunately for their case, the Commander in Chief has virtual carte blanche to make such connections, and it's not the place of subordinate to question it, so they really have no case.
      • I am pro-life, so I like Bush in part for his views on abortion. My views on gay rights are somewhere in between ... more like Kerry than Bush, but probably more like Cheney.

        The whole pro-life/choice debate is a moot issue at this point. Nothing is going to change as long as at least 1/3 of congress and 1/4 of the states are content with the status quo, which they are. So electing your public official based on that one single issue, as many people do (and I'm not suggesting you're one of them) is abs

        • The whole pro-life/choice debate is a moot issue at this point. Nothing is going to change as long as at least 1/3 of congress and 1/4 of the states are content with the status quo, which they are. So electing your public official based on that one single issue, as many people do (and I'm not suggesting you're one of them) is absolutely wrong-headed. Voting should be an intellectual issue, not an emotional one.

          The problem is that the President nominates justices, who could be sitting on the bench in -- fo
          • The problem is that the President nominates justices, who could be sitting on the bench in -- for the sake of argument -- 20 years from now, when it might be politically feasible to change the status quo. So to say someone who is thinking that long-term is being emotional isn't true, because Bush really could be making a difference through his nominations.

            I'll grant you that the areas of the constitution used in Roe v Wade were questionable. But widely held opinion is that the core constitutionality of

            • I'll grant you that the areas of the constitution used in Roe v Wade were questionable. But widely held opinion is that the core constitutionality of the 'law' created by the case will stand the test of time. Without an amendment, nothing is going to change, not even the appointment of reactionary judges.

              That's an opinion.

              Sure, but if marriage has to be defined as a religious institution that rests on top (or beneath) a civil union, then atheists and other non-church going folk can't get 'married' eithe
              • That's an opinion.

                No, it's an interpretation of the constitution that's held up for 30+ years. But lets say that Bush wins and gets his reactionary judges - and they lay their own interpretation over the constitution and overturn roe v wade. A furture president may be more liberal and could appoint activist judges who would create new law. Without an amendment defining what is legal and what isn't this issue will sway back and forth endlessly.

                No, in this plan, marriage would be completely unregulate

                • No, it's an interpretation of the constitution that's held up for 30+ years.

                  I think you're missing the point. What is "an opinion" is the idea that the court won't reverse this interpretation. You do not and cannot know that.

                  But lets say that Bush wins and gets his reactionary judges

                  LOL. That's really funny considering Roe v Wade itself was a reactionary opinion, inventing some nonexistent link between a nebulous right to privacy and the right to terminate a pregnany, and overturning centuries of p
                  • I think you're missing the point. What is "an opinion" is the idea that the court won't reverse this interpretation. You do not and cannot know that.

                    Gotcha. Sure, nobody can predict the future. I'm just going by what the general consensus seems to be based on public opinion polls. Very few want to see it go away entirely, most simply want more restrictions. LOL. That's really funny considering Roe v Wade itself was a reactionary opinion, inventing some nonexistent link between a nebulous right to pri

                    • I've always understood 'reactionary' to mean opposed to progress, change, liberalism.

                      I use it in the more absolute sense, rather than relative to a particular political persuasion: reacting to the changing political winds, instead of doing what is appropriate regardless of them. Whether that reacting is in favor of conservatism or opposed to it is, to me, beside the point.

                      But that was the point I was trying to make... everything you were detracting from was really ancillary to that point.

                      The point yo
    • As a moderate, I am as dismayed about our choices for President in 2004 as I was in 2000. 1989 - 2000 was a good ride for us moderates. I missed that episode of The Daily Show, but I'm glad I wasn't the only one who was struck by the "non-incumbent" tone of Bush's speech. There are times when I wonder about the liberal belief that Bush is a "dumb" cowboy from Texas. Because sometimes he seems even slicker than the "Slick Willy" of conservative belief.
  • The administration claims to have a plan to cut the deficit in half over the next five years. But even Bruce Bartlett, a longtime tax-cut advocate, points out that "projections showing deficits falling assume that Bush's tax cuts expire on schedule." But Mr. Bush wants those tax cuts made permanent. That is, the administration has a "plan" to reduce the deficit that depends on Congress's not passing its own legislation.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/10/opinion/10krugm a n.html [nytimes.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

Backed up the system lately?

Close